Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj62; 1966CriLJ405; (1965)GLR382
Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the order No. P. O. L./D.IP-1962 passed on December 3, 1964 by the District Magistrate, Kaira a District, detaining the petitioner under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules. 1962.2. According to the petitioner, he was at the material time, working as a petition-writer in Kapadvanj, District Kaira, and has been so working for the last about fifteen years. Prior to April 1963, one Mahamadmiya Nanamiya was his partner in his aforesaid business. But, the said Mahamadmiya ceased to be his partner as from April 1963 and set up a competing busness. According to the petitioner, as a result of the dissolution of his partnership, the said Mahamadmiya began to have a grudge against him and since April 1963, has been bringing the petitioner into different troubles & difficulties. It is also the case of the petitioner that there has been some hostility between him and some of the senior lawyers at Kapadvanj, as a consequence of which both he and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)5GLR786
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat dated March 11 1960 in Civil Suit No. 649 of 1956 by which he has referred the question whether the defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the suit land under the Tenancy Act to the Mamlatdar Choryasi Taluka for decision under Section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act2. The facts which give rise to this application are as under: The applicants are the owners of lands S. Nos. 62 61 and 63/2 at Moje Panas in Umra Taluka Choryasi with trees bungalows garage etc. standing on them. A lease was executed on February 1 1943 between the applicants and opponent No. 1 the Surat Dairy Company Ltd. through its managing agents opponent No. 2 of which original defendant No. 3 was the managing partner for a period of 10 years from February 1 1943 to May 30 1953 on an annual rent of Rs. 600/-. When the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj174; (1964)0GLR678
V.B. Raju, J. 1. The appellant who was original defendant No. 1, is the widow of one Mahmadalli Ibrahimji who died on 8-10-1947. After his death, 5 persons filed a suit No. 31 of 1949 against 8 persons for administration of the properties of the deceased Mahmadalli Ibrahimji who was the uncle of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 (Sic) and maternal uncle of defendant Nos. 2 to 7. 2. The Civil Judge, J. D., Balasinar, granted a decree for administration and appointed a commissioner to work out of the partition of the properties of the deceased amongst his heirs. In appeal, the learned Assistant Judge at Nadiad dismissed the appeal with a slight variation ofthe decree passed by the lower court. The variation was that the administration should be in respect of 2/3rd of20 tolas of gold instead of 30 tolas of gold. The learnedAssistant Judge also upheld the finding of the trial court that the sale-deed of a house by the deceased Mahamadamexecuted by the deceased in favour of his wife defendant No. 1 was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj195; (1963)GLR698
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an application by the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Karjan for the recovery of Rs. 3700/- from two persons, who were attendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the suit defendant No. 2 was sought to be made liable because he was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, although the promissory note was executed by defendant No. 1 alone.2. The plaintiff then gave an application for amending the plaint in the following terms:'In the alternative it is also prayed that both the defendants are the brothers and they have a joint undivided family and they have a joint family running cloth shop and that it is managed by the defendant No. 1. And for the business of the said shop the defendant No. 1 had purchased the cloth from the plaintiff and after settling the account thereof in the interest and benefit of the defendants' joint family, the defendant No. 1 as Manager o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR676
R.B. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision application against an order passed by the learned District Judge Broach dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against an order made by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Jhagadia in execution proceedings against the present petitioner who was original defendant No. 5 in the suit in which the relevant decree was passed. This revision application raises a question under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts leading to this application are this way.2. The opponent-plaintiff filed a Darkhast No. 7/1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Jhagadia for execution of a decree dated 3rd December 1948 which was passed in his favour against several defendants one of whom was the present petitioner (defendant No.5). The decretal amount is Rs. 1952-13-2. The defence taken by the present petitioner in the said Darkhast was that the relevant debt was extinguished as no application was made under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj61; (1962)0GLR40
ORDERR.B. Mehta, J. 1. This is a civil revision application against an order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Surat, by which the learned Assistant Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court and sent thecase back for re-trial. 2. The matter arises this way; The original suit was filed by the two plaintiffs who were the owners o Survey No. 428, which was within the jurisdiction of Surat Borough Municipality. This land was given to the defendant and his predecessors on a yearly lease by the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title. The plaintiffs sought to terminate the lease by a notice, dated 5th July 1955. As the tenants did not vacate the land, they filed an ejectment suit, also claiming mesne profits, municipal tax and revenue assessment. The defendant's defence was that he was a protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, thereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); that the notice was bad and that he was not bound to pay the municipal tax and r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj297; (1961)2GLR454
Shelat, J. 1. By a deed of Ijara dated June 4, 1936, the then ruler of the State of Navanagar granted to the petitioner's father lands admeasuring 2300 acres situate in the villages Vadala and Pata Meghpar in consideration of the grantee paying a sum of Rs. 4128-4-0 as annual assessment. It appears that after the grant was made the petitioner-had several tenants settled on those lands and a village called Juvanpur was established there. It appears from Clause (5) of the Deed of Ijara that about 102 acres and 37 Gunthas, out of the 2300 acres were cultivable lands and were in fact cultivated by tenants residing in Mota Vadala and Pata Meghpar. The grantee was allowed to have the Services of these tenants for the first year but thereafter he was to engage other tenants and have them settled n these lauds. Clause (7) of the Ijara provided that the amount of Butta rights for 14 years was to be. credited to the names of the original, tenants of Butta lands included in these 2300 acres. So f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Common Oral Judgment: Heard learned advocates for the parties. Special Civil Application No. 2074 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 200 have been interalia containing the challenge to the orders dated 25.8.1999 and 21.10.1999 respectively passed by the authorities under Section 7A as well as Section 7D of The Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), holding and confirming that the establishment i.e. petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2074 of 2000 is liable to make contribution equivalent to the cash value of food concession being available to the employees in the canteen run by M/s. Deepak Nitrite Limited Credit Cooperative and Multi purpose Co-operative Society (society). The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 2000 are the employees and office bearers of union and by this petition, they have challenged, as stated hereinabove, the aforesaid two orders and in addition thereto, pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. The petitioner was a judicial officer serving as a Joint District Judge in the cadre of District Judge. He was subjected to two departmental inquiries one after another for various charges of misconducts in discharging his duty as Judicial Officer. Ultimately, respondent No.2 Disciplinary Authority rendered a common decision dated 24th March, 2009 in respect of both the inquiries and imposed penalty of dismissal under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The respondent No.1 thereupon issued Notification dated 04th May, 2009 dismissing the petitioner from service. 1.1 In the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the said Notification dated 04th May, 2009 issued by the respondent No.1, as also the final decision dated 11th November, 2008/24th March, 2009 of respondent No.2. It is further prayed to reinstate h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. These two Criminal Appeals along with a Criminal Misc. Application filed in one of these two appeals have been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench of this Court [Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi and Paresh Upadhyay, JJ.], vide order dated 27th June 2012 for considering the following issues: (i). Whether an appeal filed by the victim, invoking his right under proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C, challenging acquittal, or conviction for a lesser offence, or awarding inadequate compensation, is not maintainable, on the ground that the State has filed an appeal against the same order and for the same purpose ? (ii). Whether an appeal filed by the State should not be entertained, on the ground that the appeal preferred by the victim invoking his right under proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C., against the same order, is admitted by the Court ? (iii). If the victim prefers an appeal before this Court, challenging the acquittal, invoking his right under proviso to se...
Tag this Judgment!